THE RADICALISED RABBI is a blog on Judaism and its very useful ideas and the blogger a Secular Koranist and a revolutionary. You don't have to be Jewish to find Jewish ideas very useful in tidying up your thinking and turbo-charging your powers of reasoning to the extent that you can even predict most events and disasters. The West is heading for disaster with its insane policy of Transnational Progressivism, turning our global village into Sodom and Gomorrah attracting the same punishment.
Sunday, 22 March 2026
Vincent Bruno and I appear together on Objective Ethics
The Feminization of Society | Louise Perry and Mary Harrington
Many are called but few are chosen; the cure exists before the disease
"Many are called, but few are chosen" is a famous phrase from Matthew 22:14 in the Bible, concluding Jesus’ parable of the wedding feast. It means that while the invitation to salvation (the call) is extended to everyone, only a few respond in faith and obedience to be accepted (the chosen), highlighting that many hear the Gospel, but few truly follow.Key Aspects of the Phrase:The Context (Matthew 22:1-14): A king throws a wedding banquet for his son. Initial guests refuse to come, so the king invites anyone they find. However, a guest is cast out for not wearing proper "wedding garments," representing those who do not truly accept Christ's righteousness.The "Called" (General Call): This represents the broad, universal invitation to salvation extended to all people.The "Chosen" (Chosen Ones): These are individuals who accept the invitation, repent, and live in faithful obedience.Meaning: It serves as a warning that hearing the message is not enough; one must truly receive it and be transformed, rather than coming on their own terms.Significance: It emphasizes that salvation is by grace, but demands a genuine, responding faith.
1:03:00 Louise Perry
1:04:00 Social exclusion
1:07:00 Locker room talk, gender roles and gender segregation
1:08:00 Secrets and censorship
1:09:00 Patriarchy
1:10:00 Transgenderism
1:11:00 Female Archbishop of Canterbury and female general
1:12:00 The path of least resistance
1:14:00 The Abrahamic God is a logical construct.
1:15:00 God's guidance
1:16:00 Judaism
1:17:00 Logical questions about Jews
1:19:00 The rules of reason and morality
1:21:00 Mens rea
1:23:00 Using our judgement
Common sense
Jury trials
1:25:00 The vulnerability of complexity
1:27:00 Instruction manual
1:28:00 Built in egalitarianism/feminism
1:30:00 Sharia and the West
1:32:00 The Amish
1:34:00 Corruption
1:35:00 Hierarchy
1:36:00 Men are conflicted between the burdens of patriarchy and the temptations of matriarchy.
Rules are made to be broken.
1:37:00 Divine intervention
1:38:00 The cure exists before the disease.
AI Overview
"The cure exists before the disease" is a significant theological principle, primarily in Judaism, suggesting that God creates the remedy before the sickness, or that solutions (tikkun) exist before challenges (kilkul). It implies hope, divine preparation, and that for every spiritual or physical affliction, a remedy is already provided.
Key Aspects of the Concept:
Jewish Theology (Midrash): The Midrash (e.g., Lekach Tov) notes that the command to build the Mishkan (Tabernacle), a solution for spiritual brokenness, was given before the sin of the Golden Calf, indicating the cure precedes the malady.
Spiritual/Moral Context: It highlights that for issues like "baseless hatred" (the cause of exile), the cure—"Ahavas Yisroel" (love for fellow Jews)—is already inherent and available.
Biblical Perspective: The concept is connected to the idea that God provides sustenance and healing, even while a person is on their sickbed.
Islamic Tradition: Similarly, a Hadith states that for every disease, a cure has been sent down by Allah.
Alternative Contexts:
Scientific Approach: While distinct from the theological concept, modern drug discovery, such as in drug repurposing, often involves finding that existing compounds (potential cures) can treat newly identified diseases, which can appear as if the "cure" existed before the specific application.
This phrase serves as a message of optimism and comfort, emphasizing that hope and solutions are inherent in the world's structure.
1:39:00 Id, ego and supergo
1:40:00 Consultation ie shura
Accountability
1:41:00 Humility as a virtue that allows people to admit their mistakes.
"Laura Loomer and the Hindus - www.HinduJudeoFreemasonry.blogspot.com"
— Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) March 21, 2026
3:00 Space begins.
6:00 My cute avatar
10:00 YouTube or X?
11:00 Clavicular and his looksmaxxing
12:00 We are being suppressed while others are being promoted.
13:00 Long YouTube streams that say very little other than a few mantras
Two hours of yakking just to say religion is needed to support marriage and maybe sharia could do the job of supporting marriage and family values!
— Secular Koranism with American Characteristics (@Book_of_Rules) March 22, 2026
The Brief and Confusing History of "Religion". Kevin Flatt https://t.co/R1MHOQOaOP via @YouTube
14:00 Kevin Flatt
16:00 Christians
Paul Vanderklay
Moral clarity
17:00 Properly titling our Spaces
18:00 Laura Loomer, Trump's No 1 Cheerleader
19:00 Shouldn't Trump's Spiritual Adviser Paula White have more influence?
20:00 Secular Jewess
Noahide laws
21:00 Milo
26:00 "Islamic right-wing Communism"
27:00 "Anything but Islam"
28:00 Islam, China and Russia
29:00 Indians are more submissive to America.
US-Iran War is about targeting China.
30:00 Indian diplomacy
31:00 Indians are a Noahide servant base.
32:00 Vincent hopes for the obliteration of Iran.
33:00 Russia is technically still a liberal democracy.
A, B and B+ schools under Secular Koranism and the reintroduction of slavery
The motte-and-bailey fallacy is an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates a controversial, hard-to-defend position (the "bailey") with a modest, easy-to-defend statement (the "motte"). Under challenge, they retreat to the safe motte, then claim victory for the bailey once the opponent withdraws.Key Components & Examples:The Bailey (Desired Position): The controversial, often unreasonable claim the speaker wants to uphold.The Motte (Defensible Position): A simplified, often trivial truth that is hard to argue against.The Shift: A speaker says, "Social media is destroying society" (Bailey), but when challenged, retreats to "Well, it's undeniable that social media has some negative effects" (Motte).Common Examples:"Crystals can cure cancer" (Bailey) shifts to "Well, feeling hopeful helps healing" (Motte) when challenged."All politicians are corrupt" (Bailey) shifts to "Well, some politicians are corrupt" (Motte).This tactic, identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel in 2005, exploits the audience's inability to distinguish between the two distinct claims, functioning as a form of bait-and-switch.
13:00 Modern contraception has caused a greater demand for abortion on demand.
15:00 Rules are made to be broken.
16:00 "Direct negative effect"
17:00 Latent damage
18:00 The cure is worse than the disease.
19:00 Corporal punishment
20:00 Men never suffer from unwanted pregnancy.
21:00 It is incumbent on the party most at risk to take more care.
Shotgun marriage
22:00 Why the Koran?
23:00 Attaching myself to a rising religious group worshiping the most powerful being conceivable would help obtain support for my ideas than simply telling people what I think would be necessary to fix society.
The nature and purpose of religion
24:00 The belief that good will be rewarded and evil punished in this life and the next incentivises people to behave correctly.
25:00 Secular Koranism is addressed to atheists, agnostics and nihilists and an attempt to regulate their behaviour.
26:00 "There is a law against it and the punishment will fit the crime" is the ultimate deterrent.
27:00 Crime and prison statistics
30:00 Men of fighting age of all races and religions tend to get into trouble with police more than men not of fighting age.
33:00 Hypocrites who claim to be a member of a religious group
34:00 The Religion of Mum and Dad
Cultural Christians and Cultural Muslims
35:00 Shouldn't America be one nation under God trusting in God?
36:00 Only 5% of Americans are atheists?
37:00 Heretics
39:00 Iran has made the most of sharia.
40:00 Uncontrolled mass immigration
41:00 Trump, ICE and Minneapolis
Income
43:00 Comparative religion
44:00 IC codes
45:00 White Nationalism has become Christian Nationalism.
46:00 Dividing people into race
47:00 Raymond Cattell
48:00 The Domestic Partnership will replace gay marriage.
49:00 Cross-referencing race and religion for research reasons
50:00 Race distinctions
51:00 Freedom of contract
52:00 How is Secular Koranism "Nazi"?
53:00 Job application form
55:00 DEI and POTUS
56:00 DEI is the current Woke religion.
58:00 White males would benefit from Secular Koranism.
59:00 My liberal instincts
1:00:00 Criticisms of Secular Koranism
1:01:00 Polari
1:02:00 SIMOS joins to ask about lesbians holding hands and kissing in public.
1:04:00 Niqab
Iran
1:05:00 Sykes-Picot Agreement
Horror story about Iran
1:07:00 Controlling the interpretation
DECONVERTED MAN joins to denounce me.
1:09:00 Why Secular Koranism
1:10:00 Secular Koranism does not infringe against the First Amendment because it is not the government establishment of religion.
1:12:00 Vincent Bruno
1:14:00 Objective measure of mixed race people
1:16:00 Gender is a social construct.
Genomes
1:18:00 Authoritarian
1:20:00 WW3 is being started by America.
1:22:00 Secular Koranism was conceived of in 2009.
1:23:00 VINCENT BRUNO joins to discuss Beyondism.
1:27:00 How Beyondism works under Secular Koranism
1:35:00 The natural way
1:36:00 Polygamy and incest under Beyondism
1:37:00 Not a hereditarian
1:40:00 FANTOM asks about slavery on Secular Koranism
1:41:00 Opening a Slave Manumission account at the Department of Work, Pensions and Manumissions
Queens who become royal nannies and civil slaves
1:42:00 Slavery was what made America great.
1:43:00 Slavery is an institution like marriage and prostitution.
1:44:00 Homicide in its varieties
Slavery is a way of regulating labour relations.
1:45:00 Work release and workfare
1:46:00 FANTOM steelmans my proposal to reintroduce slavery.
1:47:00 Chattel slavery and indentured servitude
1:48:00 ROBIN joins to discuss public schools under Secular Koranism.
1:49:00 A, B and B+ schools
1:53:00 Equal distribution of educational resources
1:56:00 To make a point
1:57:00 A year's period of grace
2:04:00 My response to Simos's criticism
Saturday, 21 March 2026
The position Tucker Carlson should take on Israel; answering Christian questions on Secular Koranism
Friday, 20 March 2026
Vincent Bruno prefers Laura Loomer to Tucker Carlson because he fears Muslims more than Jews
— Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) March 20, 2026
2:00 Vincent has irritable bowel syndrome.
3:00 Martha Welch
4:00 Cult leaders who get people to do absurd things
9:00 Aztecs, trial by ordeal, Salem witch trials
11:00 New diet
12:00 Psychosomatic
13:00 Peppermint
16:00 Fad diets
18:00 Weight loss
19:00 People go online to say "ow"
21:00 Repetition, obstructive self-destructive malice
22:00 Laura Loomer in India
25:00 Iran
https://theloop.ecpr.eu/india-in-a-fix-amid-us-israel-war-against-iran/
37:00 Indians are conflicted.
38:00 Laura Loomer has moral clarity?
We have to have moral clarity. If having moral clarity makes some people hate me or retaliate against me, so be it.
— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) February 24, 2026
Live your life in a way that requires no explanation.
Everyone knows where I stand on the issues.
I’m not trying to be accepted.
I will not play in the mud… https://t.co/vaCBzyjx8A
AI Overview
Arguments for Laura Loomer having "moral clarity" generally stem from supporters who view her as an uncompromising, unflinching activist who draws sharp lines between good and evil, specifically regarding Western civilization, loyalty to Donald Trump, and the fight against ideological opponents. In this context, her supporters see her actions not as disruptive, but as necessary, principled, and bold.
Here is how her actions and rhetoric are framed by proponents as possessing moral clarity:
Uncompromising "Us vs. Them" Binary: Loomer frequently frames complex political issues as binary choices, such as "freedom vs. tyranny" or "citizens vs. invaders," which supporters interpret as a clear, uncompromised moral stance.
Single-Minded Loyalty: Her unwavering loyalty to Donald Trump is often framed by supporters as a steadfast moral conviction in a political landscape they perceive as filled with "disloyalty" and betrayal.
Fighting "Western Decline": She views her activism, including civil disobedience, as a necessary battle to save Western civilization from threats like immigration, Islamism, and cultural liberalism, positioning herself as a defender of traditional values.
Directness and Lack of Nuance: Supporters argue that Loomer does not use "soft" language or euphemisms, instead labeling situations directly (e.g., calling for "Jew hate" to be recognized rather than just "antisemitism"), which is seen as a form of unvarnished truth-telling.
Proactive Action: Loomer has stated that she lives her life in a way that requires "no explanation" and acts on her convictions regardless of the hate or retaliation she receives, which her supporters view as true courage and moral conviction.
Contextual Definitions of "Moral Clarity"
The perception of Loomer's "moral clarity" often hinges on the definition of the term itself:
Conservative Perspective: Supporters may view her through the lens of a "culture of life" or a "struggle of good vs. evil," where her strong stand against perceived enemies is seen as a moral virtue.
Opposing Perspective: Critics often define her actions differently, viewing them not as moral clarity but as prejudice, vindictiveness, and a "stew of grievance and hatred".
Note: The results indicate that many of her statements and actions, such as targeting employees for disloyalty or calling for the prosecution of Democrats, are highly controversial and viewed by many as extremist rather than purely moral.
39:00 MAGA
40:00 Israel
Jews are really quite stupid people.
41:00 Penal transportation
42:00 Slavery
44:00 Americans cannot be trusted.
46:00 Tucker Carlson
53:00 Oil prices
57:00 What does Trump expect NATO to do?
1:00:00 Tucker Carlson
1:03:00 Israel is a proxy of Washington.
1:05:00 Tucker is the biggest antisemite in America now.
In Israel, journalists are prohibited from publishing news about damage caused by Iranian missile and drone strikes, particularly impact locations or footage near military sites that were hit, without military approval.
Breaking such an order can lead to prison sentences of several years, and under state security laws, up to 15 years.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1465620711623496&set=a.658024609049781
1:08:00 Secular Koranism with American Characteristics
1:09:00 Indonesia
1:10:00 Nick Fuentes, Christian Nationalism
Why Muslims find the TLC hostile territory even if its members are not mostly Islamophobes
I suppose a gift of mine is reading people really well. In Claire’s case, I think she’s seeking fatherly authority. It's likely a reason she’s Muslim, because she perceives a strength in its rigidity and character. Her untamability I feel serves to highlights the lack of masculine authority in TLC. I’ve tried to point this out explicitly and even model it as much as a measly comment section allows, but she still participates in that lack in a more implicit, visceral way by joining livestreams.TLC clearly operates as maternal containment. I think PVK is incapable of leading in a holy masculine way, as a pastor should, either because he had a overtly toxic relationship with masculinity in his upbringing (and just doesn't talk about it) or a very enabling one that modeled conflict avoidance over confrontation. Either way, his leadership style shows a clear affinity for the maternal, which then filters down and spreads throughout the entire community.It reminds me of your conversation with Sam about him considering stepping back from TLC. Throughout that talk, Luke, it felt like you were only entertaining Sam’s doctrinal disputes because, deep down, you view that drive for clarity as a sort of "tantrum" that just needs to be let out of the system. You seem to think that sort of thing just stands in the way of relationships, that if you just let Sam "vent," he’ll be fine and come back into the fold.Thats classic maternal containment. You aren’t guiding him toward proper understanding or growth; you’re operating from an unhealthy motherly relational attachment. My voiew is: To hide from the fact that your own relationship to conviction and clarity is unhealthy and points to a deeper lack, I feel you attempt to "dunk" by flexing your mystical muscles (as both of you did in this livestream). To me, that’s an obvious projection of insecurity.In the end, I believe the collective lack of masculine direction is just the same as Claire’s. You are all the same; you’re just afraid to admit that. Until then, you’ll just go in circles with endless conversations and give into the vice of that. That’s what TLC is at its very core: a distraction from accountability and a way to avoid confronting a deep spiritual lack. You are all just using each other for that. That's the tragedy.Another thought on Claire.I recall the question circulating in TLC: why are no Muslims here? Well, Claire is your answer.The only Muslim willing to entertain this space is a western female convert*. Islam has what TLC avoids: doctrinal clarity, dominant masculine authority, strong accountability. Claire comes in with that rigidity, yet retains enough western socialization to tolerate the maternal containment. She's a mirror and a bridge, but notice which direction she's moving.A born Muslim (particularly a man) doesn't need TLC's relational warmth. They have the community. What he'd demand is strength and clarity this space doesn't provide. Absence of Muslim presence isn't closed-mindedness. It's structural mismatch.
* Claire Khaw is not Muslim.
In a catharsis-driven culture, the shadow doesn’t get confronted, it gets distributed. TLC ends up circulating tension instead of resolving it, where talking about the good replaces doing it. When the foundation is disordered, the space built on it will mirror that.
Neal didn't want to discuss politics. He wanted to read me the New Testament. This is something Christians do for comfort, defence, distraction or malice. "Ha! I got that dumb non-Christian to listen to me quote huge chunks of the New Testament at them that was not even peripherally relevant to what we were discussing - they will never get back the time they lost again!" They are not really interested in discussing whether the Trinity is really idolatry because they are not interested in examining their beliefs to fix their problems.
I don’t think what’s happening here is Christian at all. They may believe they’re proselytizing you, but in reality they’re trying to assimilate you. Convincing a critic becomes a kind of symbolic victory. Winsome zero-sum.
If they were being properly Christian, they would be threatening to burn me at the stake!
The divine contract - prayer is the act bargaining with God
Thursday, 19 March 2026
Facts and logic by principled people should trump the emotions and false beliefs of unprincipled people
Talking to Neal Daedulus
Wednesday, 18 March 2026
I wish more people would question my beliefs
Europe is pursuing a policy of genocidal demographic replacement.
— PhilipIv (@PhilipIv399524) March 17, 2026
5:00 Jew blaming antisemites
6:00 An antisemite of mature years is less likely to change his or her views.
7:00 Aztecs and US foreign policy
9:00 Americans refuse to read George Washington's farewell speech.
10:00 Kent State shootings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
11:00 Misunderstood
13:00 Just one lawyer who has read the Koran
18:00 Referendum
24:00 I wish more people would question my beliefs.
26:00 Mary Harrington
27:00 Christianity was a religion imposed on the subjects of Christian absolute monarchs.
28:00 Magna Carta, Habeas corpus and the English Republic
29:00 Tarquin Superbus
30:00 From monarchy to republic back to monarchy again
31:00 First Amongst Equals
Empires can be republics, republics can be empires.
37:00 "Niche"
Caleb Maupin finally attempts to discuss Christianity
Have you ever heard of the madman who on a bright morning lighted a lantern and ran to the market-place calling out unceasingly: 'I seek God! I seek God!'? As there were many people standing about who did not believe in God, he caused a great deal of amusement. Why! is he lost? said one. Has he strayed away like a child? said another. Or does he keep himself hidden? Is he afraid of us? Has he taken a sea-voyage? Has he emigrated? - the people cried out laughingly, all in a hubbub. The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. 'Where is God gone?' he called out. 'I mean to tell you! We have killed him, - you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forewards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? - for even Gods putrefy! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife, - who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event, - and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!'"Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him in surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. 'I come too early,' he then said, 'I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is travelling, - it has not yet reached men’s ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, deeds need time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star, - and yet they have done it!' It is further stated that the madman made his way into different churches on the same day, and there intoned his Requiem aeternam deo. When led out and called to account, he always gave the reply: 'What are these churches now, if they are not the tombs and monuments of God?
Tuesday, 17 March 2026
The purpose of Christianity is dumb down the subjects of absolute monarchs
Jeremiah 49:34–39 is a prophecy delivered by the prophet Jeremiah against the nation of Elam, located in present-day southwestern Iran, during the early reign of King Zedekiah of Judah.Divine Judgment: God declares through Jeremiah that He will break the bow of Elam, symbolizing the destruction of their military strength, and bring four winds from the four corners of heaven to scatter the people of Elam to every nation. This signifies total dispersion and chaos.Punishment and Terror: Elam will face fierce anger and disaster from the Lord, with enemies pursuing them with the sword until they are consumed. Their king and officials will be destroyed, and they will be terrified before their enemies.Restoration Promised: Despite the severe judgment, the passage concludes with a message of hope: "But in the latter days I will restore the fortunes of Elam, declares the Lord." This reflects God’s ultimate sovereignty, justice, and mercy—judgment is followed by restoration for those who turn back to Him.This prophecy underscores God’s control over all nations, the consequences of pride and defiance, and the promise of future renewal.
Monday, 16 March 2026
My kingdom for a horse, my Secular Koranist American Republic for an interview on Tucker Carlson
William Tyndale was executed in 1536 by strangulation and burning at the stake, primarily for translating the Bible into English from Hebrew and Greek originals, which was considered heresy. His translation challenged Catholic Church authority, leading to his arrest and execution in Vilvoorde, near Brussels.Key details about Tyndale's execution:The Charge: Tyndale was tried for heresy, not only for the act of translating but because his English Bible was deemed to contain erroneous, Protestant-leaning interpretations (e.g., using "congregation" instead of "church" and "elder" instead of "priest").Final Words: Before his execution on October 6, 1536, his final words were reported as, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes".Legacy: Despite his execution, his work became the foundation for the King James Bible.Context: While he was killed on the continent, his works were banned and burned in England, and his work was viewed as a major threat to the established religious hierarchy.
AI Overview
The US Declaration of Independence framed King George III's actions as characteristic of a tyrant unfit to rule a free people, effectively condemning absolute monarchy. It cited 27 specific grievances, focusing on the abuse of power, dismantling colonial self-government, and imposing rule without consent, asserting a right to overthrow such despotism.
Key points regarding the Declaration's stance:
Condemnation of Tyranny: The document frames King George III as a tyrant, not a legitimate constitutional monarch, emphasizing that "a Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people".
Grievances Against Absolute Power: It lists abuses aimed at creating absolute authority, such as dissolving representative houses, maintaining standing armies without consent, and imposing taxes without representation.
Assertion of Natural Rights: The declaration asserts that governments derive their power from the "consent of the governed," directly opposing the concept of absolute, divinely ordained, or unrestrained monarchical power.
Justification of Revolution: By characterizing the King's rule as a "long train of abuses and usurpations" designed to establish absolute despotism, the document justifies the Colonies' right and duty to throw off such government.
27 Specific Grievances:
What were the 27 specific grievances cited by the Founding Fathers?
The 27 grievances in the Declaration of Independence are a list of specific complaints against King George III, used to justify the American colonies' break from British rule. These grievances generally fall into three categories: individual rights, representation, and the abuse of military power.
The specific grievances cited are:
- Refusal of Laws: The King refused to approve laws that were necessary for the public good.
- Blocking Urgent Laws: He prevented governors from passing important laws unless they were suspended until he gave his consent.
- Denying Representation: He refused to pass laws for large districts unless the people gave up their right to representation in the legislature.
- Inconvenient Meetings: He called legislative bodies to meet at unusual and distant places to tire them into following his orders.
- Dissolving Assemblies: He repeatedly dissolved representative houses for opposing his "invasions on the rights of the people".
- Delaying New Elections: After dissolving houses, he refused to let others be elected for a long time.
- Stopping Immigration: He worked to prevent the population of the colonies by obstructing naturalisation laws and land appropriations.
- Obstructing Justice: He refused to approve laws for establishing judiciary powers.
- Controlling Judges: He made judges dependent on his will alone for their jobs and salaries.
- Sending New Officers: He created many new offices and sent "swarms of officers" to harass the people.
- Keeping Peacetime Armies: He kept standing armies in the colonies during times of peace without the consent of legislatures.
- Military Superiority: He made the military independent of and superior to civil power.
- Foreign Jurisdictions: He worked with others to subject the colonies to a jurisdiction foreign to their constitution.
- Quartering Soldiers: For "quartering large bodies of armed troops among us".
- Protecting Murderous Soldiers: For protecting soldiers from punishment for murders committed against colonists.
- Cutting Off Trade: For cutting off the colonies' trade with all parts of the world.
- Taxation Without Consent: For "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent".
- Denying Jury Trials: For depriving colonists of the benefit of trial by jury in many cases.
- Trials Overseas: For transporting colonists across the sea to be tried for pretended offences.
- Abolishing English Laws: For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighbouring province (Quebec) to set an example of absolute rule.
- Taking Charters: For taking away colonial charters and altering the forms of their governments.
- Suspending Legislatures: For suspending the colonies' own legislatures and declaring British power to legislate for them in all cases.
- Waging War: For declaring the colonies out of his protection and waging war against them.
- Attacking Coasts and Towns: For plundering seas, ravaging coasts, and burning towns.
- Hiring Foreign Mercenaries: For transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries (Hessians) to complete the "works of death, desolation, and tyranny".
- Forcing Captives to Fight: For forcing captured American citizens at sea to fight against their own country.
- Inciting Domestic Insurrections: For exciting domestic insurrections and encouraging Native American attacks on the frontier.
Vincent Bruno and I appear together on Objective Ethics
1:26:00 CLAIRE KHAW joins to discuss the Religion of Mum and Dad. 1:29:00 Confirmation ceremony to show commitment 1:31:00 The First Amen...
-
1) Which verse of the Koran infringes the Noahide laws? 2) Why is it impossible that God would first reveal the Torah to Jews first and t...
-
18:00 The definition of morality is the Seven Noahide laws. 19:00 Is either America or Israel a righteous gentile nation? If neither even ...
-
Our moral system ie religion tells us what to believe and what we should and shouldn't do. All religions are moral systems. Secular pol...